A very interesting photo. Unfortunately, it is very blurry, which makes it suspect.

The animal depicted appears to be a Brontosaur, or some closely related species. To be fair, it does appear to be consistent with the latest theories
on brontosaur physiognomy (IE, the face seems to be flat, with a high forehead, suggesting high mounted nostrils). Also, we do have evidence that
Brontosaur was at least partially aquatic.

However, the main problem I see with the "long lost dinosaur" theory is, where the hell are the rest of them? Anyone who knows much about biology
will know that for a specific population to exist for any extended period of time (and this would be over 65 million years!) it takes more than just
one reproducing pair.

The specific size of the survivor population depends on many variables, such as proclivity for reproduction, average number of offspring,
survivability, suitability of environment, longevity, ect. Therefore, a survivor population could range from dozens to hundreds. For a population to
survive for 65 million years, it would take hundreds to thousands.

Then comes the question of why wasnt it discovered before? I can buy that some populations may remain unknown for extended periods, based on size of
the animal, the specific environment, and its average intelligence (I personally believe that it is very possible for a survivor population of
Sasquatch to exist, as they seem to exhibit considerable intelligence and live in very secluded and hard to access environments).

However, an animal this size, requiring a very sizable survivor population for that long a period, I find it VERY hard to believe they wouldnt have
been found long ago. There is also the fact that Brontos had very voracious appetites: If a survivor population did exist, they would have denuded
large swathes of vegetation, thereby giving themselves away. Also, I find it hard to believe that ANY population is going to exist for 65 million
years without some very substantial mutation/evolution, essentially changing thier very form.

It's fake, because the dinosaurs tail goes down into the water, and instead of seeing the tail reflect back in the opposite direction on the water,
it shows the tail going down into the water, so for being a pretty blurry picture, the water sure is clear.

DragonRider, you bring up some interesting points. Mokele-mbembe was suppossedly spotted in a very secluded part of Africa. In the rain forest, very
distant from civilization. There is a tribe (dont recall the name) that has reportedly seen these creatures many times. DeadInside, there is a
reflection. It could be blurry because the dino is moving through the water pretty fast, or so it seems. I still think its too good to be true.

NetChicken, when I take a good look at the pic, it does seem to be standing in the water. Even when I zoom in on the pic I cannot find any faults, I
even see eyes and a mouth. If its a hoax, it is indeed a good quality one.

Introduction
Mokele-mbembe has been described as an animal with a long neck, a long tail, and rounded shape tracks with three claws. The closest known animal that
has these characteristics is a sauropod dinosaur.

It is believed that Mokele-mbembe is a living sauropod dinosaur that lives in the Likouala swamp region of the Republic of Congo. When some of the
local people of the Likouala region would draw in the dirt or sand a representation of Mokele-mbembe they drew the shape of a sauropod dinosaur. Then
when they were shown a picture of a sauropod dinosaur they said that picture is Mokele-mbembe.

Mokele-mbembe means "One that stops the flow of rivers." French priest in the region called it "monstrous animal." Mokele-mbembe is also used as a
generic term to refer to other animals like Emela-ntouka, Mbielu-mbielu-mbielu, and Nguma-monene.

I agree with Zion and E-non: it's most likely one of the old Nessie hoax pictures (and it's blurry because they took it from a moving car...) It
looks the way we thought brontosauruses looked -- better skeletal finds have led us to the knowledge that they didn't look like that.

Plus, the ripples show it's a fairly small object (about the size of a car)

I don't have a good reference book of Nessie sightings, but I do believe that this is what the photograph is.

P.S.... the ripples don't look like they're folding around the object, either.

Ever noticed how these types of photographs are always blurred? Even the background is blurred, this should tell us something. Where was this
photograph reputedly taken? The background vegetation does not look right to be taken in Afica. Also the shadow of the creature on the water seems
to indicate that the sun is above the middle of the picture frame. However the shadow of the trees in the background seems to indicate the sun is to
the right of the picture frame.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.